Bryan Caplan
Koch Fellows Program
Hobbes' Foundations for Totalitarianism
1. Introduction
Ayn Rand is well-known for her view that philosophers'
positions in political philosophy are a logical consequence of their
views on more fundamental philosophic questions. While this theory
does not always hold up, no clearer illustration of it could be found
than in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. This paper briefly outlines
Hobbes' positions on important questions of metaphysics and ethics.
It then shows how these positions tend to imply and cohere with a
political philosophy of the total state.
2. Materialism and Determinism
Materialism normally denotes the view that nothing exists
except the physical: atoms, energy, chairs, chlorine gas, water, and
so on. It may be contrasted with dualism, with holds that in
addition to physical things, there are also mental things like
thoughts, beliefs, and minds. On this question, Hobbes generally
sounds like a materialist, albeit an inconsistent one. "Neither in us
that are pressed, are they any thing else, but divers motions (for
motion, produceth nothing but motion.)" (p.14) Again, he states "The
Word Body signifieth that which filleth, or occupyeth some certain
room, or imagined place; and dependeth not on the imagination, but is
a reall part of what we call the Universe. For the Universe, being
the Aggregate of all Bodies, there is no reall part thereof that is not
also Body; nor any thing properly a Body, that is not part of (that
aggregate of all Bodies) the Universe." (pp.269-270) Admittedly,
whole chapters throughout Leviathan contradict these statements,
such as the chapters on the passions and on imagination, both of
which are clearly mental. But the materialist strand is plainly
present.
More significantly and strongly, Hobbes explicitly denies the
doctrine of free will and affirms that human beings are just as
determined as inanimate matter; indeed, he argues that the doctrine
of free will is not merely false, but a contradiction: "And therefore
if a man should talk to me of a round Quadrangle; or accidents of
Bread in Cheese; or Immaterial Substances; or of A free Subject; A
free-will; or any Free, but free from being hindered by opposition, I
should not say he were in an Errour, but that his words were without
meaning; that is to say, Absurd." (p.34) More positively, Hobbes
explains his conception of liberty thusly: "Liberty and Necessity are
consistent; as in the water, that hath not only liberty, but a
necessity of descending by the Channel; so likewise in Actions which
men voluntarily doe: which, because they proceed from their will,
proceed from liberty; and yet, because every act of mans will, and
every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that
from another cause, in a continuall chaine they proceed from
necessity." (pp.146-147)
3. Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism commonly denotes the view that denies that
morality is a distinct and potentially objective discipline. There are
several ways to be a ethical relativist, one of which is to say that
morality is "really" something else and thereby get rid of it. For
example, if "X is good" is just another way of saying "I like X" then
relativism would be be true, because we could replace all "good"
statements with "I like" statements without any loss of meaning.
Hobbes clearly and repeatedly does precisely this. "[W]hatsoever is
the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for
his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate, and Aversion,
Evill For these words of Good, Evill, and Contemptible, are ever
used in relation to the person that useth them: There being nothing
simply and absolutely so; nor any common Rule of Good and Evill, to
be taken from the nature of the objects themselves " (p.39) Of
course, Hobbes speaks often of justice and injustice, and so appears
to deny relativism; but if one reads closer, his relativism reveals
itself boldly: "where no convenant hath preceded, there hath no Right
been transferred, and every man has right to every thing; and
consequently, no action can be Unjust. But when a convenant is
made, then to break it is Unjust: And the definition of Injustice, is
no other than the not Performance of Covenant. And whatsoever is
not Unjust, is Just." (p.100)
In chapter 27, Hobbes states that sin means nothing other than
contempt for the legislator, and crime nothing other than violating
the law. He qualifies this by pointing out that even without a
sovereign, people are still bound by natural law. But if we remember
that natural law gives everyone the right to do whatever they have
the might to do, we can see that this qualification doesn't make any
difference. And to top this all off, we have Hobbes' contemptuous
dismissal of the very idea of individual conscience: "I observe the
Diseases of a Common-wealth, that proceed from the poyson of
seditious doctrines; whereof one is, That every private man is Judge
of Good and Evill actions From this false doctrine, men are disposed
to debate with themselves, and dispute the commands of the
Common-wealth; and afterwards to obey or disobey them, as in their
private judgments they shall think fit." (p.223)
4. Depravity
Hobbes does not have a great deal of respect for human beings,
to put it mildly. He tells us not only that it is permissible for them
to do anything they feel like (in pre-political society), but that they
automatically do so. "I put for a generall inclination of all mankind,
a perpetuall and restlesse desire of Power after power, that ceaseth
only in Death." (p.70) Moreover, what they like generally involves
hurting, killing, or humiliating other people. "[I]f any two men desire
the same thing, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they
become enemies; and in the way to their End endeavor to destroy, or
subdue one another." (p.87)
To get an idea of Hobbes' view of social relations, consider
this passage: "To have received from one, to whom we think our
selves equall, greater benefits than there is hope to Requite,
disposeth to counterfeit love; but really secret hatred." (p.71) He
explanation for why it is permissible to break unenforceable
contracts is similarly illuminating: "bonds of words are too weak to
bridle mens ambition, avarice, anger, and other Passions, without
the feare of some coercive Power." (p.96)
5. The Totalitarian Connection
What is the connection between the aforementioned doctrines
and totalitarianism? Well, while strictly speaking none of them
necessarily imply totalitarianism, it is easy to see why they tend to
go together. Consider first the doctrine of free will. While political
freedom is not the same thing as freedom of the will, it is difficult
to see why the former would be valuable if we lacked the latter. For
if we automatically do as our genes and environment condition us to
do, the very idea that we can "chart our own course in life" is
mistaken. Even uncoerced, we are helpless before physical and
social forces. So coercion doesn't take away our autonomy, since we
never had it in the first place; moreover, it might actually be a favor
if the government coerced us for our own benefit, since the option of
simply choosing to save ourselves is illusory.
Materialism also tends to support totalitarianism. In moral
philosophy, it is widely accepted that in order for two things or
actions to differ in their moral properties, they must also differ
significantly in their non-moral properties. (This is known as
supervenience.) Now if materialism is true, human beings are just
aggregates of matter; they do not differ in kind from inanimate
objects. Given this, it is hard to see why human beings are entitled
to any more moral consideration than inanimate matter; that is,
none. In contrast, if dualism is true, then human beings can be
distinguished from inanimate matter because they have minds,
consciousness, thoughts, emotions, and so on; and so a plausible
basis for special moral treatment for humans can be found. (I should
mention, though, that Hobbes repeatedly contradicts his basic
materialist thesis, and never specifically denies the existence of
mental properties.)
Moral relativism also tends to support a total state. Only if
some things are objectively right or wrong is it possible to
rationally critique the existing order. If moral relativism is true,
then it isn't wrong for the state to coerce or even kill individuals;
for the doctrine of individual rights is a moral theory, and if moral
relativism is right, then all moral theories are false or nonsense.
Overall, since most of the things that total governments do
intuitively seem immoral, a would-be total ruler must undermine
morality in order to quell protest against his policies.
Finally, let us turn to the issue of human depravity. Hobbes
wants to use his pessimistic view of human nature to justify
government, on the theory that human beings are so vicious that only
fear can restrain their natural urge to harm one another. Even if it
were true, this theory wouldn't work, since it would imply that
government officials are just as wicked as their subjects. Giving
all of the power to a small group of wicked men just aggravates the
problem of human depravity. But in another sense, the doctrine of
depravity does tend to support totalitarianism. For if it were true,
it would cause us to lose respect for other people and for ourselves.
And if we have a low opinion of mankind and low self-esteem, we
are less likely to care if the government is cruel or even murderous;
for what they are destroying is of no great value to begin with.
Naturally, in so short a paper neither the textual analysis nor
the succeeding arguments can be completely convincing. I overlook a
number of conflicting passages in Hobbes, though the positions that I
attribute to him are certainly the ones that he maintains the large
majority of the time. And I don't deny that there have been thinkers
who have combined materialism, determinism, relativism, and
human depravity with a more liberal social and political theory; I
merely argue that such views better cohere with an authoritarian
political philosophy. In contrast, I think that the views that tend to
support classical liberalism are the opposite of what Hobbes
affirms: namely, a dualistic philosophy of mind, free will, moral
objectivism, and an optimistic view of human potential. That each
of these views is true I would surely maintain, but I will leave that
task for another work.